Number of Private Students Served By Chapter 1 Increases, G.A.O. Finds

WASHINGTON--The number of private school students receiving federal
Chapter 1 remedial-education services has rebounded nearly to its level
in 1985, the year the U.S. Supreme Court banned the practice of sending
public school teachers to religious schools to provide the supplemental
lessons, the General Accounting Office has found.

In a report to Congress, the G.A.O. said the increase was due
largely to Congress's decision to set money aside specifically to help
school districts pay for alternative ways of serving students in
church-affiliated schools who are entitled to Chapter 1 services.

In its 1985 opinion in Aguilar v. Felton, the High Court ruled that
it was unconstitutional for school districts to send their employees to
religious schools to provide Chapter 1 services.

In the year following the Felton decision, the number of private
school students participating in the Chapter 1 program dropped by 34
percent nationwide, from 185,000 to 123,000, as states and districts
scrambled to develop new means of providing the lessons.

By the 1991-92 school year, however, the number of private school
students receiving Chapter 1 help had increased to 168,168, or 91
percent of the level served prior to the Felton decision, according to
the G.A.O.

The total number of private school students eligible for Chapter 1
help is unknown.

"Most states cited the availability of additional funds as a factor
that enabled them to provide services to more private school
students,'' the report said.

Costs Reimbursed

In 1988, Congress authorized funding to reimburse school districts
for certain capital costs stemming from compliance with the Felton
decision.

Common ways of complying with the decision include teaching the
lessons in mobile vans or portable classrooms, renting neutral sites,
and installing in church schools computer systems that are paid for
separately and that do not require a public school employee to be
present.

Since the 1989-90 school year, districts have received about $82
million in federal funds to cover costs related to the alternative
methods. Most of the funds have gone to lease and maintain vans, which
the G.A.O. said has become the most frequently used means of serving
children in religious schools.

In 10 large states with many Chapter 1 eligible students, the G.A.O.
found that 41 percent of such children from private religious schools
were being served in vans. In those same states, 19 percent of the
students were being served in portable classrooms and another 19
percent were being served via computer.

Many school district officials interviewed by the G.A.O. said the
quality of Chapter 1 instruction has not been affected by the use of
new delivery systems. Some teachers said students enjoyed taking a
break from their daily routine to go to vans for the remedial help.

The report cited two major reasons why the number of students being
served has not returned to its pre-Felton level. Some private schools
have chosen not to participate, it said, and many parents will not
permit their children to leave school premises to receive the federal
services.

Federal Lawsuits

The G.A.O. report did not discuss several legal challenges that have
been filed against the Education Department and some school districts
over the alternative delivery systems.

For example, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an
advocacy group based in suburban Washington, filed several suits in
federal court over the delivery of Chapter 1 services to religious
school students, including one suit that challenged the special federal
appropriation. That case is pending.

Joseph Conn, a spokesman for Americans United, said the High Court's
Felton decision had been "highjacked'' by Congress and school
districts.

"They went to other alternatives that are just as bad
constitutionally and cost even more than the program cost before,'' he
said. "We feel the taxpayers got a bad deal, and it's still an
unconstitutional program.''

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.